34 MAGYAR KÉTFARKÚ KUTYA PÁRT v. HUNGARY JUDGMENT not necessarily associate themselves with the opinions expressed in the works they publish, participate in the exercise of freedom of expression by providing authors with a medium (see Öztürk v. Turkey [GC], no. 22479/93, § 49, ECHR 1999-VI). In the context of new media, the Court has previously held that a Google service designed to facilitate the creation and sharing of websites within a group constituted a means of exercising freedom of expression (see Ahmet Yıldırım, cited above, § 49). Similarly, a video-hosting website represented an important means of exercising the freedom to receive and impart information and ideas. The blocking of these services was found to deprive users of a significant means of exercising their right to freedom to receive and impart information and ideas (see Cengiz and Others v. Turkey, nos. 48226/10 and 14027/11, § 54, ECHR 2015 (extracts)). In a similar vein, the running by the applicants of a website which made it possible for users to share digital material such as movies, music and computer games was considered as putting in place the means for others to impart and receive information within the meaning of Article 10 of the Convention. The applicants’ conviction for putting in place a means of disseminating information was therefore held to constitute interference with the right to freedom of expression (see Neij and Sunde Kolmisoppi v. Sweden (dec.), no. 40397/12, 19 February 2013). 88. In line with the approach in this line of case-law, the Court accepts that the mobile application was a means put in place by the MKKP for voters to impart their political opinions, allowing them to exercise their right to freedom of expression. 89. In addition, the Court notes that in the course of the domestic proceedings the authorities held that providing voters with a mobile application and calling on them to upload and publish photographs of ballot papers, and encouraging them to cast an invalid ballot could be regarded as a campaigning activity as it was likely to influence voters’ choices (see paragraph 27 above). The Court sees no reason to call into question the domestic authorities’ interpretation of the MKKP’s conduct. It considers that the MKKP was seeking not only to provide a forum for voters to express their opinion, but also to convey a political message itself. Given the context – the time of a national referendum – and the name of the application – “Cast an invalid ballot” – the operation of this mobile application is to be regarded as an expression of the MKKP’s political opinion on the referendum in question. 90. The Court further observes that the MKKP claimed that it had been penalised not for carrying out campaigning activity as such, but for doing so through the mobile application in question (see paragraphs 26-27 above). As the Court has consistently held, the protection of Article 10 extends not only to the substance of the ideas and information expressed but also to the form in which they are conveyed (see Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994,